They found mine!

In this age of Prism (government spying) and the ability for law enforcement to easily track IP addresses of those posting on forums such as these, I wouldn't dare even link an example of creating explosives from liquids.

But I will say, as a chemical engineer myself, that there are certain liquids readily available in any laboratory setting (including university laboratories), that when mixed have a very low activation energy. The result is predictable. This is self evident to anyone here who has ever worked in a lab.*

There is also a certain powder we had at our lab that when mixed with a common liquid found in every laboratory, would produce enough deadly something-or-other to wipe out an entire plane load of passengers.

Sorry to be so oblique. If you wish to continue to believe that it isn't possible, rest assured that I won't try to correct you from this point on.

*edited to add: I re-read your earlier post and noticed that you said something to the effect that it couldn't be done in a non-laboratory setting. This is false. Let me just say that a small bucket of ice (easily found on an airplane), will certainly grant you the laboratory-like conditions necessary for my first example.

Sure, nitrogen triiodide. Mix it, place it, let it dry, trigger, boom.

Note the order of the steps, though! Good luck blowing up a plane in flight with something like that.

The issue is two liquids that can be mixed to make a boom *WITHOUT* the let it dry step and without having a energy of formation that will prematurely detonate them if you don't have enough cooling.

Not what I was referring to. It is not necessary to let it dry. Ice is all that is required from the flight attendants due to the low energy of activation. It is very, very simple.

Could a plane be brought down with this mix? I don't know. I'm not a structural, aeronautical or metallurgical engineer. I suppose placed near an exit door or some other important area one could do quite a bit of damage. I'll let others decide if bringing down a plane is possible.

Definetly propaganda and no its not "rare access". These are purely dog and pony shows to impress the higher-ups and justify the money. Bomb guys can get anyone they want on to the range. Hell, my son blew up his first car remotely when he was 2 years old. A guy I worked for brought an entire Cub Scout troop out to the range one day for a show. We turned them into seething blue avengers who despised combat engineers.

You said first car, how many has he blown up since?

I wasn't asking for a tutorial, I was asking for an incident. An example of where someone has done it, or even tried it.

I have no doubt that those engaged in chemical research, and those studying chemistry at various institutions of higher learning, have both access to the chemicals and knowledge to create liquid explosives.

However, how many of those folks are radical terrorists? How many radicals with the knowledge have access to the various components? How many of those components can be stolen from said laboratories in quantities large enough to bring down a plane? How many of those components are harmless or non-volatile enough prior to mixing to be transported in carry-on luggage disguised as water, or milk, or Pepsi, or a gel shoe insert, without poisoning the would-be bomber, rendering him unconsious from fumes, or blowing him to Chunky tomato soup on the cab ride to the airport?

Sure, it's possible. But is it easy? Is it easy enough for, say, a first year chem student to obtain the components and lab equipment, smuggle those components and lab equipment through a checkpoint disguised as a bottle of water (assuming the liquids restrictions were abolished), and mix them into a potent high-energy explosive in a terminal toilet stall or airplane lav?

Nothing is impossible, but the liklihood of something like that happening is pretty much nil. If it wasn't... somebody would have tried it by now.

We keep focusing on Rube Goldberg terrorist possibilities when what we really ought to be focused on is the gaping holes in aviation security represented by A) unscreened cargo, 2) unscreened and poorly vetted airport workers, and D) unbelievably poorly trained and never screened TSA employees.*

*Yes, I know I went A, 2, D. It's a movie reference.

How much ice? How big a container for the ice and for the "mixture."

A low energy of activation means it goes boom readily. That says nothing about how much cooling you might need to manufacture it.

The cooling issue is why you can't make nitroglycerin on the airplane. You won't have enough ice.

He's not been back to respond to your question so I am going to presume that he is not able to provide any response or links to back up his assertion.

Par for the course to screeners who post here.

He could tell us but it's SSI

More to the point, is it possible to do this with components disguised as a 12 ounce bottle of water but completely impossible to do with components disguised as 4 3-ounce bottles? Otherwise, why are multiple little bottles "safe" but a few big bottles are "dangerous"?
Well said.

And of course, there has always been the logical falacy that multiple operators couldn't possibly bring a bunch of smallbottles through in multiple 311 bags and combinethem airside.

No, Will said.

I wonder if they would catch a DVD of "The Adventures of Pluto Nash?"

I do have other things to do besides hang out here and get bashed. After reading some of the posts I have decided that if I post a link to it, I will be met with skepticism and people saying that it was not an IED.